5 ms·
It’s interesting how these things can be “healthy” and “unsafe” at the same time. Or maybe it’s because some of these health effects are often quite far-fetched
by refactor_master 4y ago
It’s interesting how these things can be “healthy” and “unsafe” at the same time. Or maybe it’s because some of these health effects are often quite far-fetched (“may improve X”, “contains compounds which has, in other contexts, been known to be important for Y” whereas e.g. lead is very strongly correlated with negative effects.
Makes me wonder on an “absolute scale” what we’re really talking about here: “-100 for heavy metals, +5 for polyphenols”. If that’s the case, some things are clearly very bad, even if evil white bread comes in at -80.
- novaRom 4y agoEverything is "healthy" and "unhealthy" depending on its amount. Good example is table salt. Too little and it feels unsatisfied, too much and it will poison you.
- sambapa 4y agoI think that the only things that are unhealthy in a "discrete" way are prions. Only one is enough to fuck you up.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoPlenty of toxins are only harmful to humans, in any amount.
- jasfi 4y agoDark chocolate would be healthy if weren't for the unsafe contaminates that show up in testing.
- greymalik 4y agoThe dose makes the poison.
- hexo 4y agoNO! With lead, there is no safe amount.
- xboxnolifes 4y agoWell, that's a very small dose.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoSome doses accumulate over time, so we treat them more seriously. Like the effects of lead and mercury.
- xboxnolifes 4y agoThis a personal pet peace of mind in science literature. Two things will be reported on as being bad for you using the same sort of language and affect public opinion. But if you actually read the study, one shows rare interaction reduces your lifespan by a decade and the other takes a lifetime of interaction to reduce your life expectancy by a month.